[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

Originally Posted by andyl

Says the man who's just admitted he didn't notice he was doing 80 in a 70 Speeding and lack of concentration!

You mean they were watching the the road and where they were going instead of staring down at their speedo - how stupid of them

[me283]

£60, 3 points, driver training... I've never seen any NIP that trains a driver, have you?

Psychic policemen - the point here is that the police don't know WHY you are speeding, there could be many reasons. So to say they stop you for any one reason is basically a lie, whatever your police friend told you.

My figures on GATSOs were purely speculative. But whilst they may repay the capital cost, there is maintenance and upkeep. Do the nice policement who visit then and relaod them not get paid? What about when they get vandalised? Do they not require calibration or checking, just like every other measurement tool on the planet? Do they not suffer wear and tear?

I may be wrong here, but is the purpose of GATSOs not purported to be MAINLY as a tool to reduce accidents/injuries/deaths? And are they not more widely used to generate revenue?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Russ D

No it isn't!! How is that going to stop someone on Income Support who will make an arrangement to pay it back at £1 per week?? How will it stop that person if they have blatant disregard for the points system and will drive if banned?

However if someone was educated well enough about the dangers of driving at speed (and overcome the "it'll never happen to me" mentality) then SURELY that will be more productive?

Speeding fines by themselves in general are not a deterrent for the reasons you state. What is the answer? Maybe so many hours of compulsory attendance at a driver education program in addition to fine and points.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Can I assume you're not a driver? I refuse to believe any driver who says they have never crept over the limit (even by 1mph) due to lack of concentration. It does not make you a bad person - it just means you need to try and be more alert in future. Again the police recognise this and the example is what happened to me in the situation I described a few posts back.

I would agree that I have been as guilty as every driver of going over the speed limit at times. Sometimes you can be concentrating more on what is happening around you than your speedo. I do though try to adhere to the limits. Perhaps cars should be fitted with warning buzzers that sound when you go over the limit? The bad drivers though are the ones who deliberately speed and are so unaware of what is going on around them that they fail to see the police car, gatso camera and warning signs. If a gatso camera gets you then it is your fault and yours alone. They wouldn't make a penny if drivers were concentrating.

[me283]

If I were in power, I would make the following rules: Drink drivers would be banned for life. People driving whilst banned would be imprisoned. Gatso revenue would be used to fund more police officers. Speeding alone would not result in penalty points, just a fine. People found guilty of careless or reckless driving woul;d be dealt with more harshly. If however someone caused an accident and speeding were found to be a factor, then they should have the book thrown at them. Speed limits would be reviewed, and some lowered, some raised. For example within say 200 yards of a school or home for the elderly, a limit of 20mph should be set and rigorously enforced.

This is not a detailed prospectus of my plan for traffic management, but just a few ideas. Agree if you like, slate them if you wish.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

£60, 3 points, driver training... I've never seen any NIP that trains a driver, have you?

What's a NIP got to do with it. It was just a suggestion for a different penalty.

Originally Posted by me283

Psychic policemen - the point here is that the police don't know WHY you are speeding, there could be many reasons. So to say they stop you for any one reason is basically a lie, whatever your police friend told you.

Does it matter WHY you were speeding? You are speeding, it is an offence. If you think that you had mitigating circumstances for speeding then let the courts decide.

Originally Posted by me283

My figures on GATSOs were purely speculative. But whilst they may repay the capital cost, there is maintenance and upkeep. Do the nice policement who visit then and relaod them not get paid? What about when they get vandalised? Do they not require calibration or checking, just like every other measurement tool on the planet? Do they not suffer wear and tear?

Who says policemen do those tasks? They don't.

Originally Posted by me283

I may be wrong here, but is the purpose of GATSOs not purported to be MAINLY as a tool to reduce accidents/injuries/deaths? And are they not more widely used to generate revenue?

They are used as a tool to reduce accidents/injuries/deaths and as a warning that you should watch your speed. If they generate revenue it is only because you are stupid enough not to heed the warning and to pass one at a speed greater than the speed limit. It's only the driver that makes them a cash cow.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

If I were in power, I would make the following rules: Drink drivers would be banned for life. People driving whilst banned would be imprisoned. Gatso revenue would be used to fund more police officers. Speeding alone would not result in penalty points, just a fine. People found guilty of careless or reckless driving woul;d be dealt with more harshly. If however someone caused an accident and speeding were found to be a factor, then they should have the book thrown at them. Speed limits would be reviewed, and some lowered, some raised. For example within say 200 yards of a school or home for the elderly, a limit of 20mph should be set and rigorously enforced.

This is not a detailed prospectus of my plan for traffic management, but just a few ideas. Agree if you like, slate them if you wish.

The only thing I could not agree with is no penalty points for speeding. You need to commit more than one offence for them to be a problem so heed the warning of your first points. Otherwise good thinking.

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

What's a NIP got to do with it. It was just a suggestion for a different penalty.

Does it matter WHY you were speeding? You are speeding, it is an offence. If you think that you had mitigating circumstances for speeding then let the courts decide.

Who says policemen do those tasks? They don't.

They are used as a tool to reduce accidents/injuries/deaths and as a warning that you should watch your speed. If they generate revenue it is only because you are stupid enough not to heed the warning and to pass one at a speed greater than the speed limit. It's only the driver that makes them a cash cow.

No it doesn't matter whay, but there was a previous posting that stated:

"A traffic policeman once told me that in many cases they prosecute drivers for speeeding not so much because they are speeding but because they are not concentrating on driving enough..."

In my locality we often see policemen opening up GATSOs. I presume they are policemen as they wear police uniforms and drive police vehicles.

There better ways to warn people to watch their speed, but for some reason they are not deployed. I don't know, but it may be because they don't generate revenue?

Too many people drive too fast. But too many people drive badly or dangerousl, within the speed limit. Example: If I am on a motorway and the middle and outside lanes are being hogged by 45mph drivers, and I decided to pass on the EMPTY inside lane, who is more likely to be prosecuted? I think it would be me. But am I the only person driving "without due care and attention"? No.
__________________

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The only thing I could not agree with is no penalty points for speeding. You need to commit more than one offence for them to be a problem so heed the warning of your first points. Otherwise good thinking.

Thank you Ian, let's start a political party!

By the way, I have 3 points for no real offence... "Failing to provide info" when I genuinely don't have the info. Recent developments lead me to believe my number plates have been copied, but that's another matter. Any way, I have three points.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

No it doesn't matter whay, but there was a previous posting that stated:

"A traffic policeman once told me that in many cases they prosecute drivers for speeeding not so much because they are speeding but because they are not concentrating on driving enough..."

In my locality we often see policemen opening up GATSOs. I presume they are policemen as they wear police uniforms and drive police vehicles.

There better ways to warn people to watch their speed, but for some reason they are not deployed. I don't know, but it may be because they don't generate revenue?

Too many people drive too fast. But too many people drive badly or dangerousl, within the speed limit. Example: If I am on a motorway and the middle and outside lanes are being hogged by 45mph drivers, and I decided to pass on the EMPTY inside lane, who is more likely to be prosecuted? I think it would be me. But am I the only person driving "without due care and attention"? No.
__________________



Thank you Ian, let's start a political party!

By the way, I have 3 points for no real offence... "Failing to provide info" when I genuinely don't have the info. Recent developments lead me to believe my number plates have been copied, but that's another matter. Any way, I have three points.

I once had a speeding endorsement on my licence (1972) and I know I wasn't speeding. I was stopped by a road traffic car on the M606. I couldn't prove I wasn't speeding and the court believed the two police offices. No fixed penalties in those days.

GATSO cameras are all supplied by a company called Serco Justice who plan, install, calibrate and maintain the cameras including traffic light cameras. They are the only people who are authorised to calibrate the systems and issue the annual certificate which is used in evidence by the courts.

One of the best road warning systems are the radar controlled speed limit signs which light up like Blackpool illuminations if you approach them too fast. Some of these also display the registration number of the offending vehicle which makes them even more of a warning to the offender.

What most people are unaware of is the high number of "invisible" cameras deployed mainly on motorways. These detect and record speed and number plate of offending vehicles but are not certified for use in motoring offence prosecutions. The smallest of these is actually fitted into the cats eyes on the carriageway.

[me283]

An recent posting mentioned drink drivers being targetted in the run up to Christmas. This is something I also disagree with. Called me what you like, but I would rather have police doing spot checks all year round, followed by SEVERE court action for guilty offenders, than the usual round of Christmas statistics.

This whole thing about traffic offences makes me think a new approach might me more effective. For example, taking the most serious offences (causing death by dangerous driving, drink driving, driving whilst disqualified?), and treat the offenders more harshly than ever before. The message would filter down that offenders will be dealt with properly. It starts at the top, and the domino effect would, I think, produce greater results than our current methodology.

Part of the problem at the moment seems to be what "normal" drivers see as injustice. Joe Public may end up with points on his licence, which may cost him his job, livelihood, increased insurance premiums etc. Some might think this is justified. But then we hear on the news, read in papers et about banned drivers who are on their third or fourth offence, who have just been banned for... driving whilst banned.

I am not supporting sensationalist journalism, nor am I trying to justify people with any level of driving convictions, but to most of us it seems that the penalties are much harsher for rare offenders than persistent ones.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

An recent posting mentioned drink drivers being targetted in the run up to Christmas. This is something I also disagree with. Called me what you like, but I would rather have police doing spot checks all year round, followed by SEVERE court action for guilty offenders, than the usual round of Christmas statistics.

This whole thing about traffic offences makes me think a new approach might me more effective. For example, taking the most serious offences (causing death by dangerous driving, drink driving, driving whilst disqualified?), and treat the offenders more harshly than ever before. The message would filter down that offenders will be dealt with properly. It starts at the top, and the domino effect would, I think, produce greater results than our current methodology.

Part of the problem at the moment seems to be what "normal" drivers see as injustice. Joe Public may end up with points on his licence, which may cost him his job, livelihood, increased insurance premiums etc. Some might think this is justified. But then we hear on the news, read in papers et about banned drivers who are on their third or fourth offence, who have just been banned for... driving whilst banned.

I am not supporting sensationalist journalism, nor am I trying to justify people with any level of driving convictions, but to most of us it seems that the penalties are much harsher for rare offenders than persistent ones.

I agree with most of what you are saying. The easiest way to murder someone is to mow them down with your car and then drink a bottle of Scotch. You will get off far more leniently than someone who kills using a gun.

Originally Posted by me283

An recent posting mentioned drink drivers being targetted in the run up to Christmas. This is something I also disagree with. Called me what you like, but I would rather have police doing spot checks all year round, followed by SEVERE court action for guilty offenders, than the usual round of Christmas statistics.

This whole thing about traffic offences makes me think a new approach might me more effective. For example, taking the most serious offences (causing death by dangerous driving, drink driving, driving whilst disqualified?), and treat the offenders more harshly than ever before. The message would filter down that offenders will be dealt with properly. It starts at the top, and the domino effect would, I think, produce greater results than our current methodology.

Part of the problem at the moment seems to be what "normal" drivers see as injustice. Joe Public may end up with points on his licence, which may cost him his job, livelihood, increased insurance premiums etc. Some might think this is justified. But then we hear on the news, read in papers et about banned drivers who are on their third or fourth offence, who have just been banned for... driving whilst banned.

I am not supporting sensationalist journalism, nor am I trying to justify people with any level of driving convictions, but to most of us it seems that the penalties are much harsher for rare offenders than persistent ones.

Much of that makes sense but speeding can be a serious offence (it can be a crucial part of a dangerous driving prosecution for example as a recent fatal case around here showed). The problem is speeding only becomes a serious criminal offence when someone is killed or injured; but if you speed you are likely to be increasing the risk of accident and just because you haven't yet killed or injured someone doesn't mean the offence shouldn't be treated as serious. And speeders are not rare offenders. They are everywhere and they are persistent.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

What most people are unaware of is the high number of "invisible" cameras deployed mainly on motorways. These detect and record speed and number plate of offending vehicles but are not certified for use in motoring offence prosecutions. The smallest of these is actually fitted into the cats eyes on the carriageway.

Thats interesting. Got any links?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Much of that makes sense but speeding can be a serious offence (it can be a crucial part of a dangerous driving prosecution for example as a recent fatal case around here showed). The problem is speeding only becomes a serious criminal offence when someone is killed or injured; but if you speed you are likely to be increasing the risk of accident and just because you haven't yet killed or injured someone doesn't mean the offence shouldn't be treated as serious. And speeders are not rare offenders. They are everywhere and they are persistent.

Yes, but as has been stated, "speeders" covers people driving between 1mph and 100mph over the limit. And, it seems acknowledged that every driver at some stage may drift over the limit, even momentarily.

"Serious" speeders, for want of a better word, should be all but hung. Someone who drives at 31mph should be ignored UNLESS their actions have dire consequences. But equally, someone driving badly below the limit should be punished.

It's a difficult one, but maybe what needs to happen is speed should be a factor in a conviction, as opposed to the offence itself?

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

What most people are unaware of is the high number of "invisible" cameras deployed mainly on motorways. These detect and record speed and number plate of offending vehicles but are not certified for use in motoring offence prosecutions. The smallest of these is actually fitted into the cats eyes on the carriageway.

I think you might be confusing the traffic master system with speed cameras. They record registrations of vehicles as they pass sections of motorway and then use this to work out average speeds and then if average speeds are low it calculates there is a hold up.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The smallest of these is actually fitted into the cats eyes on the carriageway.

It's only a technology that has been talked about.

Originally Posted by me283

Yes, but as has been stated, "speeders" covers people driving between 1mph and 100mph over the limit. And, it seems acknowledged that every driver at some stage may drift over the limit, even momentarily.

"Serious" speeders, for want of a better word, should be all but hung. Someone who drives at 31mph should be ignored UNLESS their actions have dire consequences. But equally, someone driving badly below the limit should be punished.

It's a difficult one, but maybe what needs to happen is speed should be a factor in a conviction, as opposed to the offence itself?

But you can't have arbitrary speed limits; they would be unenforceable. Tell you what though if you get done for doing 31 in a 30, I'll pay the fine for you As I said before I agree with action the copper took against Russ but if you look at that example, Russ was nearly 15% over the speed limit; that's quite a margin really. Do 40 in a 30 - a far worse crime in my book - and you are more than 30% over the speed limit.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

But you can't have arbitrary speed limits; they would be unenforceable. Tell you what though if you get done for doing 31 in a 30, I'll pay the fine for you As I said before I agree with action the copper took against Russ but if you look at that example, Russ was nearly 15% over the speed limit; that's quite a margin really. Do 40 in a 30 - a far worse crime in my book - and you are more than 30% over the speed limit.

I agree, arbitrary speed limits are neither feasible nor practical. And hoping that a magistrate will be interested enough to even listen to what one has to say is pure fantasy. Even before my own experience I had heard horror stories. Maybe the GAtsoS themselves are less of a problem than the scale of fines and the handling of cases by the courts? I would have second thoughts about going to court now, even if I had the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury as witnesses that I was 1000 miles away! I got the impression that I was just another motorist chancing his arm, in their eyes.